Gaurav v. State

$~30 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ W.P.(CRL) 270/2017 GAURAV ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Saurabh Kansal, Adv.

versus STATE ..... Respondent Through:

Ms.Nandita Rao, ASC SI Sandeep Srivastava, P.S.Maurya Enclave.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 24.10.2017 The petitioner has questioned the order dated 10.11.2016 passed by the competent authority, whereby his prayer for being released on parole for filing SLP before the Supreme Court of India; to arrange for funds and to reestablish social ties has been rejected. The competent authority found the grounds urged by the petitioner to be not genuine and also took into account the fact that the petitioner had been made accused in two other cases which are pending trial in the Courts of law. However, from the nominal roll it appears that the petitioner has remained in jail for more than five years and his conduct in jail has been satisfactory. With respect to his involvement in two other cases, the nominal roll indicates that the petitioner has been on bail in the aforesaid two cases. The address of the petitioner has been verified. His family has been found to

be residing at Jhuggi No.98, Sector 20, Rohini, Delhi. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has also informed this Court that after his involvement in the aforesaid two other cases, this Court had granted interim bail to the petitioner and he had surrendered at the end of the period of interim bail.

Taking into account the aforesaid facts, especially the petitioner having displayed good behaviour in jail, this Court is inclined to release him on parole for a period of four weeks.

The petitioner is directed to be released on parole for a period of four weeks, to be counted from the date of his release, on his furnishing bond in the sum of Rs.5,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Superintendent of the concerned jail.

The petitioner shall, however, abide by the conditions listed below:- a) The petitioner shall surrender before the jail authorities on or before the expiry of the said period of parole. b) The petitioner shall not engage himself in any unlawful activity. c) The petitioner would not leave, under any circumstance, the National Capital Region of Delhi, without intimating the officerin-charge of the concerned police station. d) He shall furnish his and his sureties' mobile telephone numbers to the SHO of the concerned police station so that in case of necessity he could be tracked and his whereabouts could be ascertained. In case, the petitioner flouts any one of the conditions, an application could be moved by the SHO for cancellation of his parole and for taking of coercive steps for securing his attendance.

With these observations, the petition is disposed of.

The order be communicated to the Superintendent of the concerned jail for compliance and record.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J OCTOBER 24, 2017 k